I am not saying that violent scenes in movies and tv shows like the walking dead should be censored. But if it is okay to show such immense amounts of gore, why is it such a bad thing to show a woman's nipples? What is wrong with out society? What is so offensive about women's nipples? You can show spilled guts but not nipples? Does anyone feel me here?

At 10/29/2013 9:40:14 PM, muslimnomore wrote:I am not saying that violent scenes in movies and tv shows like the walking dead should be censored. But if it is okay to show such immense amounts of gore, why is it such a bad thing to show a woman's nipples? What is wrong with out society? What is so offensive about women's nipples? You can show spilled guts but not nipples? Does anyone feel me here?

What is remarkable to me is that even the most unrelenting violence alone will not merit any higher (usually) than a PG-13 rating in the United States... but a woman's exposed chest alone will get a movie a minimum of an R rating...

In any case, it's clear that in America, sex of any kind is more taboo than violence. Sad. Quite sad, indeed.

At 10/29/2013 9:40:14 PM, muslimnomore wrote:I am not saying that violent scenes in movies and tv shows like the walking dead should be censored. But if it is okay to show such immense amounts of gore, why is it such a bad thing to show a woman's nipples? What is wrong with out society? What is so offensive about women's nipples? You can show spilled guts but not nipples? Does anyone feel me here?

What is remarkable to me is that even the most unrelenting violence alone will not merit any higher (usually) than a PG-13 rating in the United States... but a woman's exposed chest alone will get a movie a minimum of an R rating...

To be fair, I think the standard for R is simply a prolonged nudity. But, your overall point remains.

In any case, it's clear that in America, sex of any kind is more taboo than violence. Sad. Quite sad, indeed.

At 10/29/2013 9:40:14 PM, muslimnomore wrote:I am not saying that violent scenes in movies and tv shows like the walking dead should be censored. But if it is okay to show such immense amounts of gore, why is it such a bad thing to show a woman's nipples? What is wrong with out society? What is so offensive about women's nipples? You can show spilled guts but not nipples? Does anyone feel me here?

What is remarkable to me is that even the most unrelenting violence alone will not merit any higher (usually) than a PG-13 rating in the United States... but a woman's exposed chest alone will get a movie a minimum of an R rating...

To be fair, I think the standard for R is simply a prolonged nudity.

Any nudity at all gets an R rating, unless the MPAA has changed its standards since I last checked.

But, your overall point remains.

In any case, it's clear that in America, sex of any kind is more taboo than violence. Sad. Quite sad, indeed.

Although it's a preposterous notion now that I'm grown, there was once a time that seeing a girl's breasts hanging out would give me an erection. It may even elicit the desire to masturbate, looking at the image or scene.

However, there was never at time that violence would give me any sort of physiological reaction. Inclusion in a movie or show would simply make the show more compelling or exciting, or even, more realistic, but once it's done, it's done. I don't generally watch movies for violence in and of itself. Stylized violence, maybe. Exciting action, perhaps. But, violence alone? No. Mindless violence? No.

The porn industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, though, and it has achieved this through mindless sexual displays.

This said, maybe there's another way of looking at it.

Perhaps, like so many other mores in this society, that particular taboo is driven by corporate giants that would lose a ridiculous amount of money if people no longer considered something as simple as a nipple a big deal anymore.

Although it was no longer that exciting after I grew out of preadolescence, there are people, both male and female, who remain excited by seeing something as simple as a nipple their entire lives, and although they won't admit it, many of their interests and entertainment expenditures revolve around seeing a nipple or some labia. Simply given the fact that these things are taboo and considered naughty, the mere suggestion of them is exciting enough, which begins to bleed into other, less direct, but equally profitable interests, such as lingerie and pretty models attracting eyes to cars or athletic competition.

Indeed, making nipples a common thing that someone could be desensitized to from childhood could collapse our very economy.

Perhaps, we must maintain the taboo in order to maintain the country at large, and ironically, our obsession with sex, nipples, phalli, and labia.

At 10/29/2013 9:40:14 PM, muslimnomore wrote:I am not saying that violent scenes in movies and tv shows like the walking dead should be censored. But if it is okay to show such immense amounts of gore, why is it such a bad thing to show a woman's nipples? What is wrong with out society? What is so offensive about women's nipples? You can show spilled guts but not nipples? Does anyone feel me here?

What is remarkable to me is that even the most unrelenting violence alone will not merit any higher (usually) than a PG-13 rating in the United States... but a woman's exposed chest alone will get a movie a minimum of an R rating...

To be fair, I think the standard for R is simply a prolonged nudity.

Any nudity at all gets an R rating, unless the MPAA has changed its standards since I last checked.

Brief nudity is not.Certain other nude scenes are not (I think it is context, like sex is not occuring, IDK)Think American Pie movies being PG-13 with an extended long topless scene.

But, your overall point remains.

In any case, it's clear that in America, sex of any kind is more taboo than violence. Sad. Quite sad, indeed.

It was just always odd to me that, as a kid, my parents had no problem with me playing violent video games, watching movies like Braveheart and Gladiator even when I was 11... or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (I think I was in middle school when that came out?)... but they were terrified that I was having sex, or even that I was thinking about sex. They fast forwarded through any sex scenes, always, if they were there when I or my brother or sister were watching movies. Well, my mother was terrified, at least. My dad didn't so much care... he also, I think, figured out I was gay when I was about 14 (by going through my browser history). My mom took a little while longer... lol.

At 10/29/2013 9:40:14 PM, muslimnomore wrote:I am not saying that violent scenes in movies and tv shows like the walking dead should be censored. But if it is okay to show such immense amounts of gore, why is it such a bad thing to show a woman's nipples? What is wrong with out society? What is so offensive about women's nipples? You can show spilled guts but not nipples? Does anyone feel me here?

What is remarkable to me is that even the most unrelenting violence alone will not merit any higher (usually) than a PG-13 rating in the United States... but a woman's exposed chest alone will get a movie a minimum of an R rating...

To be fair, I think the standard for R is simply a prolonged nudity.

Any nudity at all gets an R rating, unless the MPAA has changed its standards since I last checked.

Brief nudity is not.Certain other nude scenes are not (I think it is context, like sex is not occuring, IDK)Think American Pie movies being PG-13 with an extended long topless scene.

Which one? I'm just curious which one you're talking about.

But, your overall point remains.

In any case, it's clear that in America, sex of any kind is more taboo than violence. Sad. Quite sad, indeed.

At 10/29/2013 9:40:14 PM, muslimnomore wrote:I am not saying that violent scenes in movies and tv shows like the walking dead should be censored. But if it is okay to show such immense amounts of gore, why is it such a bad thing to show a woman's nipples? What is wrong with out society? What is so offensive about women's nipples? You can show spilled guts but not nipples? Does anyone feel me here?

What is remarkable to me is that even the most unrelenting violence alone will not merit any higher (usually) than a PG-13 rating in the United States... but a woman's exposed chest alone will get a movie a minimum of an R rating...

To be fair, I think the standard for R is simply a prolonged nudity.

Any nudity at all gets an R rating, unless the MPAA has changed its standards since I last checked.

Brief nudity is not.Certain other nude scenes are not (I think it is context, like sex is not occuring, IDK)Think American Pie movies being PG-13 with an extended long topless scene.

I only saw the first two, in theaters.Of course, maybe the rules have changed for ratings since then (what, like 10 years ago these came out).I've heard that smoking is an automatic "R", or was at least considered. Ugh...

Which one? I'm just curious which one you're talking about.

But, your overall point remains.

In any case, it's clear that in America, sex of any kind is more taboo than violence. Sad. Quite sad, indeed.

At 10/29/2013 9:40:14 PM, muslimnomore wrote:I am not saying that violent scenes in movies and tv shows like the walking dead should be censored. But if it is okay to show such immense amounts of gore, why is it such a bad thing to show a woman's nipples? What is wrong with out society? What is so offensive about women's nipples? You can show spilled guts but not nipples? Does anyone feel me here?

What is remarkable to me is that even the most unrelenting violence alone will not merit any higher (usually) than a PG-13 rating in the United States... but a woman's exposed chest alone will get a movie a minimum of an R rating...

To be fair, I think the standard for R is simply a prolonged nudity.

Any nudity at all gets an R rating, unless the MPAA has changed its standards since I last checked.

Brief nudity is not.Certain other nude scenes are not (I think it is context, like sex is not occuring, IDK)Think American Pie movies being PG-13 with an extended long topless scene.

I only saw the first two, in theaters.Of course, maybe the rules have changed for ratings since then (what, like 10 years ago these came out).I've heard that smoking is an automatic "R", or was at least considered. Ugh...

Cigarettes? No. Weed? Yes. lol

Which one? I'm just curious which one you're talking about.

But, your overall point remains.

In any case, it's clear that in America, sex of any kind is more taboo than violence. Sad. Quite sad, indeed.

At 10/29/2013 9:40:14 PM, muslimnomore wrote:I am not saying that violent scenes in movies and tv shows like the walking dead should be censored. But if it is okay to show such immense amounts of gore, why is it such a bad thing to show a woman's nipples? What is wrong with out society? What is so offensive about women's nipples? You can show spilled guts but not nipples? Does anyone feel me here?

What is remarkable to me is that even the most unrelenting violence alone will not merit any higher (usually) than a PG-13 rating in the United States... but a woman's exposed chest alone will get a movie a minimum of an R rating...

To be fair, I think the standard for R is simply a prolonged nudity.

Any nudity at all gets an R rating, unless the MPAA has changed its standards since I last checked.

Brief nudity is not.Certain other nude scenes are not (I think it is context, like sex is not occuring, IDK)Think American Pie movies being PG-13 with an extended long topless scene.

I only saw the first two, in theaters.Of course, maybe the rules have changed for ratings since then (what, like 10 years ago these came out).I've heard that smoking is an automatic "R", or was at least considered. Ugh...

Cigarettes? No. Weed? Yes. lol

I heard of a push, I don't think they went for it. (probably a parent's group of some sort that was hyped/misrepresented in the drive-by media)

However, to prove my case, here is the relevant part of brief nudity:More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented.

At 10/29/2013 9:40:14 PM, muslimnomore wrote:I am not saying that violent scenes in movies and tv shows like the walking dead should be censored. But if it is okay to show such immense amounts of gore, why is it such a bad thing to show a woman's nipples? What is wrong with out society? What is so offensive about women's nipples? You can show spilled guts but not nipples? Does anyone feel me here?

What is remarkable to me is that even the most unrelenting violence alone will not merit any higher (usually) than a PG-13 rating in the United States... but a woman's exposed chest alone will get a movie a minimum of an R rating...

To be fair, I think the standard for R is simply a prolonged nudity.

Any nudity at all gets an R rating, unless the MPAA has changed its standards since I last checked.

Brief nudity is not.Certain other nude scenes are not (I think it is context, like sex is not occuring, IDK)Think American Pie movies being PG-13 with an extended long topless scene.

I only saw the first two, in theaters.Of course, maybe the rules have changed for ratings since then (what, like 10 years ago these came out).I've heard that smoking is an automatic "R", or was at least considered. Ugh...

Cigarettes? No. Weed? Yes. lol

I heard of a push, I don't think they went for it. (probably a parent's group of some sort that was hyped/misrepresented in the drive-by media)

However, to prove my case, here is the relevant part of brief nudity:More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented.

At 10/29/2013 9:40:14 PM, muslimnomore wrote:I am not saying that violent scenes in movies and tv shows like the walking dead should be censored. But if it is okay to show such immense amounts of gore, why is it such a bad thing to show a woman's nipples? What is wrong with out society? What is so offensive about women's nipples? You can show spilled guts but not nipples? Does anyone feel me here?

What is remarkable to me is that even the most unrelenting violence alone will not merit any higher (usually) than a PG-13 rating in the United States... but a woman's exposed chest alone will get a movie a minimum of an R rating...

To be fair, I think the standard for R is simply a prolonged nudity.

Any nudity at all gets an R rating, unless the MPAA has changed its standards since I last checked.

Brief nudity is not.Certain other nude scenes are not (I think it is context, like sex is not occuring, IDK)Think American Pie movies being PG-13 with an extended long topless scene.

I only saw the first two, in theaters.Of course, maybe the rules have changed for ratings since then (what, like 10 years ago these came out).I've heard that smoking is an automatic "R", or was at least considered. Ugh...

Cigarettes? No. Weed? Yes. lol

I heard of a push, I don't think they went for it. (probably a parent's group of some sort that was hyped/misrepresented in the drive-by media)

However, to prove my case, here is the relevant part of brief nudity:More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented.

Another way of looking at this, the fact that my previous comment was ignored notwithstanding, is that you'll see quite a bit of violence on an elementary school playground naturally, but not a whole lot of sex.

I mean, one can say that it's reinforced by the violence people see, but it doesn't require a whole lot of experience to ball your hand into a fist and punch someone in the face with the right provocation, although some people are never inspired to take off their clothes and get naughty with other people.

At 10/29/2013 11:47:54 PM, Such wrote:Another way of looking at this, the fact that my previous comment was ignored notwithstanding, is that you'll see quite a bit of violence on an elementary school playground naturally, but not a whole lot of sex.

I mean, one can say that it's reinforced by the violence people see, but it doesn't require a whole lot of experience to ball your hand into a fist and punch someone in the face with the right provocation, although some people are never inspired to take off their clothes and get naughty with other people.

My point is that, although sex is natural and necessary for human survival, perhaps humans are more inclined to violence than sex.

And subjective, too. But, I think they're pretty consistent (or at least used to be). I can't think of a lot of nudity in PG-13 movies, though. The only brief nude scenes I can think of off the top of my head are R, like Ricochete and Demolition Man, and that had violence and language.

I'll bet two guys making out in bed together would be an automatic NC-17...

Double standard if it is, but I would say it should be at least PG-13, depending.

Ever see Brokeback Mountain? How graphic was that? That was only R, I think.

At 10/29/2013 9:40:14 PM, muslimnomore wrote:I am not saying that violent scenes in movies and tv shows like the walking dead should be censored. But if it is okay to show such immense amounts of gore, why is it such a bad thing to show a woman's nipples? What is wrong with out society? What is so offensive about women's nipples? You can show spilled guts but not nipples? Does anyone feel me here?

What is remarkable to me is that even the most unrelenting violence alone will not merit any higher (usually) than a PG-13 rating in the United States... but a woman's exposed chest alone will get a movie a minimum of an R rating...

To be fair, I think the standard for R is simply a prolonged nudity.

Any nudity at all gets an R rating, unless the MPAA has changed its standards since I last checked.

Brief nudity is not.Certain other nude scenes are not (I think it is context, like sex is not occuring, IDK)Think American Pie movies being PG-13 with an extended long topless scene.

I only saw the first two, in theaters.Of course, maybe the rules have changed for ratings since then (what, like 10 years ago these came out).I've heard that smoking is an automatic "R", or was at least considered. Ugh...

Cigarettes? No. Weed? Yes. lol

I heard of a push, I don't think they went for it. (probably a parent's group of some sort that was hyped/misrepresented in the drive-by media)

However, to prove my case, here is the relevant part of brief nudity:More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented.

And subjective, too. But, I think they're pretty consistent (or at least used to be). I can't think of a lot of nudity in PG-13 movies, though. The only brief nude scenes I can think of off the top of my head are R, like Ricochete and Demolition Man, and that had violence and language.

I'll bet two guys making out in bed together would be an automatic NC-17...

Double standard if it is, but I would say it should be at least PG-13, depending.

Ever see Brokeback Mountain? How graphic was that? That was only R, I think.

Fair point. I actually forgot about Brokeback Mountain for a bit. I have seen it, but it's been a while. I didn't really like it... probably why I forgot it.

And subjective, too. But, I think they're pretty consistent (or at least used to be). I can't think of a lot of nudity in PG-13 movies, though. The only brief nude scenes I can think of off the top of my head are R, like Ricochete and Demolition Man, and that had violence and language.

I'll bet two guys making out in bed together would be an automatic NC-17...

Double standard if it is, but I would say it should be at least PG-13, depending.

Ever see Brokeback Mountain? How graphic was that? That was only R, I think.

Fair point. I actually forgot about Brokeback Mountain for a bit. I have seen it, but it's been a while. I didn't really like it... probably why I forgot it.

I was actually asking because I am curious, I never saw it, and I have no interest in seeing it. I actually don't know how graphic any of it is. Is it the outside of the tent rocking? Or do you see their sweating faces by moonlight?

If it is the former, and it got R, that could be a double standard. If not, then it is a counter example.

And subjective, too. But, I think they're pretty consistent (or at least used to be). I can't think of a lot of nudity in PG-13 movies, though. The only brief nude scenes I can think of off the top of my head are R, like Ricochete and Demolition Man, and that had violence and language.

I'll bet two guys making out in bed together would be an automatic NC-17...

Double standard if it is, but I would say it should be at least PG-13, depending.

Ever see Brokeback Mountain? How graphic was that? That was only R, I think.

Fair point. I actually forgot about Brokeback Mountain for a bit. I have seen it, but it's been a while. I didn't really like it... probably why I forgot it.

I was actually asking because I am curious, I never saw it, and I have no interest in seeing it. I actually don't know how graphic any of it is. Is it the outside of the tent rocking? Or do you see their sweating faces by moonlight?

It's certainly suggested, although actual "sex" isn't shown, as I recall. I could be wrong though...

If it is the former, and it got R, that could be a double standard. If not, then it is a counter example.

At 10/29/2013 9:40:14 PM, muslimnomore wrote:I am not saying that violent scenes in movies and tv shows like the walking dead should be censored. But if it is okay to show such immense amounts of gore, why is it such a bad thing to show a woman's nipples? What is wrong with out society? What is so offensive about women's nipples? You can show spilled guts but not nipples? Does anyone feel me here?

What is remarkable to me is that even the most unrelenting violence alone will not merit any higher (usually) than a PG-13 rating in the United States... but a woman's exposed chest alone will get a movie a minimum of an R rating...

To be fair, I think the standard for R is simply a prolonged nudity.

Any nudity at all gets an R rating, unless the MPAA has changed its standards since I last checked.

Titanic didn't.

But, your overall point remains.

In any case, it's clear that in America, sex of any kind is more taboo than violence. Sad. Quite sad, indeed.

#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

At 10/29/2013 9:40:14 PM, muslimnomore wrote:I am not saying that violent scenes in movies and tv shows like the walking dead should be censored. But if it is okay to show such immense amounts of gore, why is it such a bad thing to show a woman's nipples? What is wrong with out society? What is so offensive about women's nipples? You can show spilled guts but not nipples? Does anyone feel me here?

What is remarkable to me is that even the most unrelenting violence alone will not merit any higher (usually) than a PG-13 rating in the United States... but a woman's exposed chest alone will get a movie a minimum of an R rating...

To be fair, I think the standard for R is simply a prolonged nudity.

Any nudity at all gets an R rating, unless the MPAA has changed its standards since I last checked.

Titanic didn't.

I don't recall any provocative scenes in Titanic...

But, your overall point remains.

In any case, it's clear that in America, sex of any kind is more taboo than violence. Sad. Quite sad, indeed.

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."